The f3.5 is wickedly sharp, dirt cheap, and uses the 49mm thread filters that are standard with most other Takumar lenses.

Using film since before it was hip.

"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

Softbox + reflector. Camera on tripod, f8 or f11, Ektachrome E100G (should have used the GX instead, the subject looks a little pasty). Cheap scan from the minilab's Fuji Frontier. No PS post-processing.

Attached Thumbnails

Using film since before it was hip.

"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

The 3.5 both super and smc have 49mm filter threads, the 2.5 super is 6 elements in 6 groups the smc is 5 elements in 5 groups and has either a 55 or 58mm filter, I cant recall off the top of my head. Wide open the 2.5 is very sharp for the day, and the Dept of Feild is much better than a 180 2.0.

The 3.5 both super and smc have 49mm filter threads, the 2.5 super is 6 elements in 6 groups the smc is 5 elements in 5 groups and has either a 55 or 58mm filter, I cant recall off the top of my head. Wide open the 2.5 is very sharp for the day, and the Dept of Feild is much better than a 180 2.0.

I don't think this is quite right. As I recall, Pentax made two versions of the 135/2.5 SMC Tak. The earlier one did indeed that 5 elements, but later they switched to a six element design which some say is sharper. This is not a frequently used lens for me, so I'm merely a parrot. Somewhere out there, probably on PDML, is the serial number break where the change from five to six elements occured.

I don't think this is quite right. As I recall, Pentax made two versions of the 135/2.5 SMC Tak. The earlier one did indeed that 5 elements, but later they switched to a six element design which some say is sharper. This is not a frequently used lens for me, so I'm merely a parrot. Somewhere out there, probably on PDML, is the serial number break where the change from five to six elements occured.

I checked the Ashi Historical Group's web site, the 3.5 was only made in 5 lens in 4 elements, the 2.5 was made as 5 lens in 4 elements, and as 6 lens in 6 elements. My 3.5 is a late model super and the information that came with the lens says 5 lens in 4 elements. I was under the impression that the 135 3.5 super while multi coated but basically the same lens as late model SMC.